9th Democratic Primary Debate

[ANVEEROY 65,387]

THIS WAS - 

 

[LateToCult 42,009]

Liz and Bernie just posted phenomenal campaign donations for today. Liz raised $2.8 M and Bernie raised $2.7 M.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

32 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

Article from 2016 regarding Sanders and a brokered convention:

"His campaign distributed factsheets Sunday showing general election polling in battleground states and nationwide where he outperforms his opponent against Republican candidates.

"[Super delegates] are going to have to go into their hearts and they are going to have to ask themselves do they want the second strongest candidate running against Trump or the strongest candidate?" Sanders said.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-clinton-faces-contested-convention/story?id=38803835

 

I could be mistaken, but when Hillary had the majority of delegates in 2016 didn't Sanders say there should be a contested convention? Didn't his campaign suggest super delegates should not go with Clinton in spite of her having more delegates because Sanders was the stronger candidate against Trump? Didn't Sanders say basically the same thing every other candidate said on the stage tonight?

 

In 2016 the superdelegates were on the FIRST ballot, and over 400 of them had pledged to support Hillary before voters had even voted, which is undemocratic and basically said "She wins, even if Sanders gets the most delegates and votes" so yes the Sanders team tried to have a fighting stand in the case that he came out with more votes, because it wasn't fair that they had essentially picked her before voting happened - So, the argument that some of them should switch to him in order to be representative of the diverse will of the people is valid to me, since there was still a chance he could indeed have more delegates and votes than her early in the contest, he outperformed almost all polling in several states and was a serious contender. If he had come like, in a virtual tie with her nationally but Superdelegates had gone with Clinton for personal reasons, that would have been irreflective of the will of the voters, which is why they lobbied against this. He ended up losing the popular vote as well, but there was an amount of time where they seriously had a chance of winning, and thus a predetermined superdelegate victory would've been wrong.

 That he was also shown as a stronger candidate against Trump is a second order point for me, but going with someone who was less likely to beat Trump AND who didn't represent the will of the people fully would be a mistake not just of foresight, but of integrity, so I have no problem with Sanders trying to lobby superdelegates to switch to him. That's entirely consistent with the 1 person 1 vote, the superdelegates should reflect the people, not the party mindset that he is espousing today.

It isn't the same thing as now, where people are saying that they, who most have conceded have no chance of beating Bernie in popular vote or delegate totals or state victories, should allow superdelegates to pick someone who DIDN'T win the most votes or delegates because it would allow them to "win" without winning.

 

(Also, that kind of decision would fracture this party and guarantee our loss in 2020 against Trump, which is why Bernie would support whoever got the most votes and delegates, even if it wasn't him. It should've been easy for them to say that, even though most of them have no chance of winning atm. They essentially conceded we can't win, but want to circumvent who the voters pick anyway. This is IMO the biggest "unity" question one can ask.)

[SKANK 14,288]

5 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

In 2016 the superdelegates were on the FIRST ballot, and over 400 of them had pledged to support Hillary before voters had even voted, which is undemocratic and basically said "She wins, even if Sanders gets the most delegates and votes" so yes the Sanders team tried to have a fighting stand in the case that he came out with more votes, because it wasn't fair that they had essentially picked her before voting happened - So, the argument that some of them should switch to him in order to be representative of the diverse will of the people is valid to me, since there was still a chance he could indeed have more delegates and votes than her early in the contest, he outperformed almost all polling in several states and was a serious contender. If he had come like, in a virtual tie with her nationally but Superdelegates had gone with Clinton for personal reasons, that would have been irreflective of the will of the voters, which is why they lobbied against this. He ended up losing the popular vote as well, but there was an amount of time where they seriously had a chance of winning, and thus a predetermined superdelegate victory would've been wrong.

 That he was also shown as a stronger candidate against Trump is a second order point for me, but going with someone who was less likely to beat Trump AND who didn't represent the will of the people fully would be a mistake not just of foresight, but of integrity, so I have no problem with Sanders trying to lobby superdelegates to switch to him. That's entirely consistent with the 1 person 1 vote, the superdelegates should reflect the people, not the party mindset that he is espousing today.

It isn't the same thing as now, where people are saying that they, who most have conceded have no chance of beating Bernie in popular vote or delegate totals or state victories, should allow superdelegates to pick someone who DIDN'T win the most votes or delegates because it would allow them to "win" without winning.

 

(Also, that kind of decision would fracture this party and guarantee our loss in 2020 against Trump, which is why Bernie would support whoever got the most votes and delegates, even if it wasn't him. It should've been easy for them to say that, even though most of them have no chance of winning atm. They essentially conceded we can't win, but want to circumvent who the voters pick anyway )

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Clinton went into the convention with the plurality of delegates. Sanders then encouraged superdelegates to vote for him over Clinton, in spite of him having less delegates, but also because he believed he was more electable. 

Whatever the reasons may have been, Sanders was not willing to concede to the candidate with more delegates at the 2016 convention.

I don't see how that is substantially different than what the other Democratic candidates are saying now.

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

10 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Clinton went into the convention with the plurality of delegates. Sanders then encouraged superdelegates to vote for him over Clinton, in spite of him having less delegates, but also because he believed he was more electable. 

Whatever the reasons may have been, Sanders was not willing to concede to the candidate with more delegates at the 2016 convention.

I don't see how that is substantially different than what the other Democratic candidates are saying now.

 

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/478705022/sanders-campaign-now-says-superdelegates-are-key-to-winning-nomination

As I said, their theory was that if Bernie ended up being very close in delegates and having more state victories etc, then the superdelegates shouldn't be able to simply ignore that and go with whoever they chose because it alienates a large part of the electorate.

"If by the convention Sanders has "substantial momentum" and has substantially "closed the gap" in pledged delegates, Weaver said, "I think there's a strong argument to be made to superdelegates that they should take another look."

This story broke around the Nevada Democratic Convention, when they made a last minute rule change to give the most delegates to the person who won in what is the equivalent of the "first" alignment, not the second. Bernie won in the second, Hillary in the first. When there was a roll call vote to pass this rule change, the Nays had more votes apparently, but the leader claimed that the ayes won anyway, which lead to extreme chaos. So they overruled the nay voters in order to give Hillary more delegates even though Bernie had won in what they had previously said was the final tally. For a parallel with Iowa (which is a bit different, granted) this would be like if they had decided that Although Pete had more SDEs, Bernie should get more delegates because he won the 2nd alignment vote. So this effectively, combined with the superdelegates heavily in Clinton's favor, gave her more pledged delegates than she had won, and helped push her over the edge at a time when it was still possible that Bernie could win or we would end up in a brokered convention.

So no, it is not the same rationale as "Look, Sanders has no chance of winning with pledged delegates, so we need superdelegates to turn it over to him" because Sanders did not, after she had won the mathematical # of pledged delegates to become the nominee, say "I think I should win anyway" She hadnt won yet, and there was clearly a concerted effort (as we later learned through leaked DNC emails) to give Clinton a stronger advantage than she had earned to prevent his chance of winning in either way - pledged or superdelegates.

 

[littlepotter 76,617]

1 hour ago, SKANK said:

 

Article from 2016 regarding Sanders and a brokered convention:

"His campaign distributed factsheets Sunday showing general election polling in battleground states and nationwide where he outperforms his opponent against Republican candidates.

"[Super delegates] are going to have to go into their hearts and they are going to have to ask themselves do they want the second strongest candidate running against Trump or the strongest candidate?" Sanders said.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-clinton-faces-contested-convention/story?id=38803835

 

I could be mistaken, but when Hillary had the majority of delegates in 2016 didn't Sanders say there should be a contested convention? Didn't his campaign suggest super delegates should not go with Clinton in spite of her having more delegates because Sanders was the stronger candidate against Trump? Didn't Sanders say basically the same thing every other candidate said on the stage tonight?

 

I think you're mistaken. As far as I know Bernie has been against the Superdelegate system as a whole. Don't know how trustworthy this site is but: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/360587-tim-kaine-sides-with-sanders-calls-for-eliminating-superdelegates

[SKANK 14,288]

14 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/478705022/sanders-campaign-now-says-superdelegates-are-key-to-winning-nomination

As I said, their theory was that if Bernie ended up being very close in delegates and having more state victories etc, then the superdelegates shouldn't be able to simply ignore that and go with whoever they chose because it alienates a large part of the electorate.

"If by the convention Sanders has "substantial momentum" and has substantially "closed the gap" in pledged delegates, Weaver said, "I think there's a strong argument to be made to superdelegates that they should take another look."

This story broke around the Nevada Democratic Convention, when they made a last minute rule change to give the most delegates to the person who won in what is the equivalent of the "first" alignment, not the second. Bernie won in the second, Hillary in the first. When there was a roll call vote to pass this rule change, the Nays had more votes apparently, but the leader claimed that the ayes won anyway, which lead to extreme chaos. So they overruled the nay voters in order to give Hillary more delegates even though Bernie had won in what they had previously said was the final tally. For a parallel with Iowa (which is a bit different, granted) this would be like if they had decided that Although Pete had more SDEs, Bernie should get more delegates because he won the 2nd alignment vote. So this effectively, combined with the superdelegates heavily in Clinton's favor, gave her more pledged delegates than she had won, and helped push her over the edge at a time when it was still possible that Bernie could win or we would end up in a brokered convention.

So no, it is not the same rationale as "Look, Sanders has no chance of winning with pledged delegates, so we need superdelegates to turn it over to him" because Sanders did not, after she had won the mathematical # of pledged delegates to become the nominee, say "I think I should win anyway" She hadnt won yet, and there was clearly a concerted effort (as we later learned through leaked DNC emails) to give Clinton a stronger advantage than she had earned to prevent his chance of winning in either way - pledged or superdelegates.

 

 

Sander's argument was, in part, that superdelegates ought to take into consideration his electability over Clinton in the general election, and they should quote "listen to their hearts," in spite of Clinton receiving more delegates. Correct?

 

6 minutes ago, littlepotter said:

I think you're mistaken. As far as I know Bernie has been against the Superdelegate system as a whole. Don't know how trustworthy this site is but: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/360587-tim-kaine-sides-with-sanders-calls-for-eliminating-superdelegates

 

Yes. I'm talking about a contested convention though. Which Sander's publicly favored in 2016 when it benefited him, and doesn't now when it seems he will have the most delegates.

 

 

[Bt1 5,213]

This debate format will only hurt Democrats in the long run. 

Bloomberg lost tonight, but only warren was the one who managed to hurt him. It is important to note that Trump cant attack Bloomberg on the same subjects, while he has a lot of material for Warren, Bernie, Biden. 

Amy got away without being a target until now. She lost on her first attack. It was too easy. 

On every debate there is one other candidate that the rest go after. When it will happen with Bernie? He is no 1 in the polls, people. U all are fighting for second place? 

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

23 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

Sander's argument was, in part, that superdelegates ought to take into consideration his electability over Clinton in the general election, and they should quote "listen to their hearts," in spite of Clinton receiving more delegates. Correct?

Yes. I'm talking about a contested convention though. Which Sander's publicly favored in 2016 when it benefited him, and doesn't now when it seems he will have the most delegates.

 

 

Ive said the same thing twice now but I'll say it again  

Clinton did not yet have a victory in the pledged delegates when Sanders team decided to try to court Superdelegates publicly, and they were upset at the notion that there could be a scenario where lets say Clinton ends up with 1750 delegates and Sanders 1700, but Clinton would just win because she has +500 Superdelegates on her side that were decided before voting even began. That would have been an instance where the 500 superdelegates ignored the views of the 1700 representative delegates awarded which would show near equal support in the electorate. At that point in the race, Sanders could have still won in the total delegate count. In 2020 Warren, Pete, Bloomberg, and Biden at this point have essentially a 0% chance of winning a majority of delegates (1991), and a similarly slim to impossible chance of winning the plurality either. RN Warren's chances are literally 1% and Pete's are 2% , compared to Bernie being around 45% of winning the majority, and his odds of winning a plurality are almost guaranteed at this point.

The superdelegates did not back Clinton because she was winning in pledged delegates once the race was well underway, they backed her before voting started because she was the establishment pick... so that argument is bunk tbh. If the job of superdelegates is just to vote for whoever has already won, then they are pointless. That they should decide who wins before the voters have chosen clouds the entire election with a giant "your votes might not matter at all" asterisk is obviously undemocratic, which is why they proposed getting rid of them, but had to settle for a second ballot initiative. If their purpose is to be some sort of high up "I think ____ is more likely to win/best for the country", then it is not unreasonable to say "Hey, a large percentage of the electorate likes me, my views, what I stand for, so maybe some of you should back me"

A contested convention in 2016 had Bernie ended up with a near equal % of votes, delegates, state wins, etc. would have been appropriate, and there was reason to believe it was possible back then. He favored it because it would have been fair. He does not favor it now because it would be used to undemocratically award someone the nominee who is not supported by the largest % of the electorate. And again, once Hillary won the outright majority of pledged delegates, Bernie did eventually drop out and endorse her and campaign for her aggressively and enthusiastically, explicitly telling his supporters to vote for her.

For comparison, we are looking at a likely outcome (again, based on prediction models) where proportionally Sanders could end up around 1500+ delegates, Bloomberg 1000, Biden 800, Warren 600, Pete 200 etc... And all of them are saying "I should get the +500, not Bernie" when in reality Superdelegates should be just as likely to support Bernie who only would need 300 or so of them to become the nominee as they are to go towards a multitude of candidates in small numbers, which would still put Bernie as the person with the plurality unless they unanimously support bloomberg (who would likely need almost every superdelegate to back him in order to win btw)

That's not superdelegates exercising a "personal belief' about who should win based on the results of the election or whatever its them being gatekeepers in check of their own power and influence, and we already know this is possible because Tom Perez has appointed superdelegates to the rules committee who have explicitly stated they want to overturn the will of the people if it means denying Bernie the nomination, who have slandered him, attacked him personally and publicly, and who have strong conflicts of interest where their financial success is dependent upon being anti-Bernie.

There's a chance that Bloomberg or Biden could get EVERY superdelegate and still would not cross 1990, where as Bernie would easily be able to cross that threshold if he got just some of them, and the fact that they might STILL pick Bloomberg or Biden even if they don't exceed Bernie's delegates with pledged + superdelegates is ridiculous.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, Florin said:

This debate format will only hurt Democrats in the long run. 

Bloomberg lost tonight, but only warren was the one who managed to hurt him. It is important to note that Trump cant attack Bloomberg on the same subjects, while he has a lot of material for Warren, Bernie, Biden. 

Amy got away without being a target until now. She lost on her first attack. It was too easy. 

On every debate there is one other candidate that the rest go after. When it will happen with Bernie? He is no 1 in the polls, people. U all are fighting for second place? 

 

Tbh, at this point the moderate camps should have realized that they have very little chance of getting "on the fence" Bernie supporters because polling has been consistent for a year now - the majority of Bernie's support is strong, and not on the fence, sometimes showing 60-70% of his support being people who are "definitely voting for Bernie and not considering other candidates"

It would be a waste of their energy to try to get those people to switch. In comparison, Warren, Biden, Pete, and Amy (and Bloomberg, though we have less data) have much higher rates of people who are unsure and have not made up their mind. Still, Biden and Warren supporters 2nd choice is already Bernie, so them dropping out would, despite what you hear on media, help Bernie  We've been talking about this for month, but the fact that BIDEN, the quintessential moderate, has had 2nd choice Bernie supporters be a strong majority of his support for almost a year now has been a HUGE sign that Bernie has the potential to unite the electorate regardless of ideology  

Attacking Bernie may get them some "I'm not a socialist, but I like his passion/committment/message" moderates who are voting for Bernie currently but shopping around, but its much more about signaling to party elites and superdelegates and establishment media that they want them to consider them as alternatives to Bernie. Like, its his primary that they are all vying for second in and it has been for longer than they cared to realize. The second that every debate became "Are you with Bernie's policies or against them?" it was apparent that this was his race to lose, not an uphill battle like pundits said when they predicted he'd drop out in August  

But its a tightrope. Bernie people are entirely willing to go scorched earth if this process is unfair again, and they can't just attack them virulently, or they risk a general election loss if they become the nominee. 

Like it or not, millennials and bernie supporters have put up a fence, and they're going to use their leverage, because they are the most solidified and united base in the electorate right now of any of the candidates, and they've increased in size in 2016 and diversified demographically. You mightve been able to align some young white millennials who may not have voted in 2016 and still win (lol she didn't though), but good luck maligning black and brown working class voters who stayed home for Clinton in 2016, young people, and Independents, all CRUCIAL demographics to win in a general election in 2020. That would be guaranteeing Trump a victory.

They have to be able to attack Bernie on electability w.o saying "his supporters dont count!" and unfortunately, the polling shows him as the most electable even when you factor in "but socialism!" so it just renders most of their attacks ineffective, even Warren's tonight just like... slipped off of him. Bernie hasn't released the details of his cold when he was 50? Yawn, hes the most electable and people don't care about that stuff. The media's obsession with "vote blue no matter who!" and "electability >>>everything else" is a double edged sword that is now biting establishment types in the butt  

That was always a dogwhistle for "support the moderates at any cost and oppose the progressives esp. Bernie" but the people who actually vote don't have any incentive to preserve the establishment party apparatus, THEY are hurt by Trump's policies, and they want him out. That's why #NeverBernie was never going to catch on subliminally. Even old moderate Democrats who want Trump out will vote for Bernie, no matter how establishment types handwring about "socialism!?!?!?!?" - Like, they're trying to tell people "Raising the minimum wage is an UNPOPULAR position that will lose the election!" and anyone with a brain can tell you that that makes no sense, and polling shows that even a vast majority of Republican voters support that  

[SKANK 14,288]

Just now, ItsTommyBitch said:

Ive said the same thing twice now but I'll say it again  

Clinton did not yet have a victory in the pledged delegates when Sanders team decided to try to court Superdelegates publicly, and they were upset at the notion that there could be a scenario where lets say Clinton ends up with 1750 delegates and Sanders 1700, but Clinton would just win because she has +500 Superdelegates on her side that were decided before voting even began. That would have been an instance where the 500 superdelegates ignored the views of the 1700 representative delegates awarded which would show near equal support in the electorate. At that point in the race, Sanders could have still won in the total delegate count. In 2020 Warren, Pete, Bloomberg, and Biden at this point have essentially a 0% chance of winning a majority of delegates (1991), and a similarly slim to impossible chance of winning the plurality either. RN Warren's chances are literally 1% and Pete's are 2% , compared to Bernie being around 45% of winning the majority, and his odds of winning a plurality are almost guaranteed at this point.

The superdelegates did not back Clinton because she was winning in pledged delegates once the race was well underway, they backed her before voting started because she was the establishment pick... so that argument is bunk tbh. If the job of superdelegates is just to vote for whoever has already won, then they are pointless. That they should decide who wins before the voters have chosen clouds the entire election with a giant "your votes might not matter at all" asterisk is obviously undemocratic, which is why they proposed getting rid of them, but had to settle for a second ballot initiative. If their purpose is to be some sort of high up "I think ____ is more likely to win/best for the country", then it is not unreasonable to say "Hey, a large percentage of the electorate likes me, my views, what I stand for, so maybe some of you should back me"

A contested convention in 2016 had Bernie ended up with a near equal % of votes, delegates, state wins, etc. would have been appropriate, and there was reason to believe it was possible back then. He favored it because it would have been fair. He does not favor it now because it would be used to undemocratically award someone the nominee who is not supported by the largest % of the electorate. And again, once Hillary won the outright majority of pledged delegates, Bernie did eventually drop out and endorse her and campaign for her aggressively and enthusiastically, explicitly telling his supporters to vote for her.

For comparison, we are looking at a likely outcome (again, based on prediction models) where proportionally Sanders could end up around 1500+ delegates, Bloomberg 1000, Biden 800, Warren 600, Pete 200 etc... And all of them are saying "I should get the +500, not Bernie" when in reality Superdelegates should be just as likely to support Bernie who only would need 300 or so of them to become the nominee as they are to go towards a multitude of candidates in small numbers, which would still put Bernie as the person with the plurality unless they unanimously support bloomberg (who would likely need almost every superdelegate to back him in order to win btw)

That's not superdelegates exercising a "personal belief' about who should win based on the results of the election or whatever its them being gatekeepers in check of their own power and influence, and we already know this is possible because Tom Perez has appointed superdelegates to the rules committee who have explicitly stated they want to overturn the will of the people if it means denying Bernie the nomination, who have slandered him, attacked him personally and publicly, and who have strong conflicts of interest where their financial success is dependent upon being anti-Bernie.

There's a chance that Bloomberg or Biden could get EVERY superdelegate and still would not cross 1990, where as Bernie would easily be able to cross that threshold if he got just some of them, and the fact that they might STILL pick Bloomberg or Biden even if they don't exceed Bernie's delegates with pledged + superdelegates is ridiculous.

 

I appreciate the length and thought you put into your posts, but I don't think you are replying to my question.

Did Bernie Sanders argue in 2016 that superdelegates ought to pledge their support to Sanders over Clinton, not just because of the pledge delegate issue you laid out, but in part because he could defeat Donald Trump?

 

[Bt1 5,213]

@ItsTommyBitch that strategy can only put you in second place. 

Anyway, it will be interesting to see it Bloomberg will be affected by his performance, since his support comes from somewhere else. 

It is clear that Warren won tonight, but again, what does that mean? I doubt that even if Bloomberg lost some supporters, those supporters will go to Warren. 

[littlepotter 76,617]

20 minutes ago, Florin said:

@ItsTommyBitch that strategy can only put you in second place. 

I don't think you really understood what they were saying?  You're talking as if any of them have an actual chance at being in the first place instead of Bernie. Tommy explained to you why there is absolutely no possible scenario in which Bernie will not get the most votes.

There is however a big possibility that Bernie won't get 50%+ votes, and in that case the DNC might nominate someone other than him for the main election, throgh the superdelegate system. What the other candidates are trying to do, now that they know they CAN'T win more votes than Bernie, is try to get superdelegates to nominate them instead of Bernie. 

At least that is how I understand it.

[Bt1 5,213]

1 hour ago, littlepotter said:

I don't think you really understood what they were saying?  You're talking as if any of them have an actual chance at being in the first place instead of Bernie. Tommy explained to you why there is absolutely no possible scenario in which Bernie will not get the most votes.

There is however a big possibility that Bernie won't get 50%+ votes, and in that case the DNC might nominate someone other than him for the main election, throgh the superdelegate system. What the other candidates are trying to do, now that they know they CAN'T win more votes than Bernie, is try to get superdelegates to nominate them instead of Bernie. 

At least that is how I understand it.

Bloomberg wasnt there to win Nevada. We are at that point when u should look for the top prize or get out. 

[President Biden 5,898]

8 hours ago, Brainiac said:

It's very telling that the only candidate who said the person with the most votes should become the nominee was Bernie.

Yes bc it shows he’s a flippin idiot.

 

The Democratic Party nomination process requires one of two things:

1. One candidate to outrightly win over 51% of delegates, likely over 51% of the vote. This is how Hillary won.

 

2. Build a coalition of delegates from other candidates who may endorse eachother, to reach over that 51%. 
 

Either way, the process ensures that a MAJORITY of delegates back the nominee, hopefully reflecting a majority of primary voters.

 

It is ~not~ designed to just hand the nomination to a candidate with 26% of the vote. Bc that’s only a plurality, not a majority. The system is designed in the party’s best interest to test the nominee and ensure it is someone well supported. If Bernie is the leading candidate and he can pull together Warren, Biden, Buttigieg, etc delegates at the convention, then clearly he is well supported. But if every other candidate united against him than, CLEARLY, his campaign is a niche 26% socialist revolution with no broadband support among the party. This isn’t some shady thing. They’ve used this system before in the days of JFK & LBJ. Candidates likely to get less delegates like Warren and Pete aren’t going to pull some shady Bloomberg stuff. They hate him.